Category: Philosophy

I just listened to a recent debate between JF Gariepy and a Christian who sounded like his diet consisted exclusively of soy shakes. I am very much enjoying J.F.’s contribution to the intellectual culture on the “pooblic spayce”.

There is a shortage of good role models out there for young people and J.F. has a talent for conveying complex concepts in a manner which is both engaging and entertaining to the listener.

I am writing this now to help people understand a bit more of the context of what they are undertaking. I have already established that the Theocratic Dictatorship is the structure of all natural organisms, transcending individuality and culture so we will take that as a given and explore the current goings-on in that framework.

Even this plug has a Master/Slave Dictatorship

The Internet, pre-GamerGate

The Internet was very “ghettoised” in this era. Unbeknownst to the general public, several talking heads on Youtube collaborated behind the scenes to establish a cogent sociopolitical narrative. They all focused on the same themes and ignored the same things. This is a means to control public opinion. Thus these “Youtube Atheists” fulfilled the same function as theocratic dictators, and so comprise the cult of Atheism (i.e.: Atheism is Unstoppable, The Atheist Experience, The Thinking Atheist). In this cult, any beliefs deriving from religion (mostly from Abrahamic cults) is endlessly derided. Thus the public opinion was largely that Atheism was the logical or “proper” position.

Gamer Gate

The phenomenon of Gamer Gate had the effect of radicalising fence-sitters because the manufacturing of narratives (of “sexism” by the “social justice” cult) hit home for them. They watched a resistance movement form online and be gradually undermined by what has become the “Liberalist” cult (led by SarGandhi) who first claimed to promote “ethics in video game journalism” but ended up mainly making videos mocking SJW antics. This caused a rapid increase in cynicism in the “silent majority” of the Internet (lurkers) and further radicalisation.

Poking the Bear & the Dawn of Internet Blood Sports

Since the SJW cult needs a constant supply of “gnat-sees’s” lives to ruin in order to continue to fuel the narrative that they have the moral high ground, further radicalisation was inevitable. It all came to a head when a popular Youtuber called Kraut and Tea deleted his channel after being ritually humiliated on numerous J.F. Gariepy livestreams and the server he was using to dox dissenters was leaked.

Up to that point, the influence of Liberalism and Social Justice was decidedly waning, owing to constant trolling by Alt Right and 4chan activists. Youtubers increasingly engaged in livestream “bumfights”, reaching for personal insults as frequently as actual arguments in their quest for debate dominance.

So-called “Internet Blood Sports”, a trend that has caught on following the “sacrifice” of Kraut and Tea, involve a rivalry between one or more people being settled in an informal debate-style argument on a Youtube livestream. The atheist Gariepy has thus set himself up as a theocratic dictator: bestowing judgement and prestige upon his subjects.

Next Steps – Analysis of Arguments

It’s important to remember that just because one debater is wrong does not necessarily mean that the other is right. A debate between a Christian and an Atheist about Government is frustrating because both debaters are wrong. However, we can still critique the overall debate and gain wisdom from this.

On Christian Nationalism

The Christian soyboy arrogantly claimed that Europe owes its ‘scientific advancements’ to Christianity. Many anecdotal instances are cited, such as “but so-and-so was a Christian” even though anyone who didn’t submit to Christianity would have been killed in those days (something that would come back if modern day Christians got their way and instituted a theocratic dictatorship, they’d be bound to slay “heathens” by their law). Another idiotic claim is that since a Catholic Priest came up with the idea of the Big Bang, that this means Christianity is validated by science.

do you trust these greaseballs? I don’t.

In fact, what is more likely is that the Big Bang was promoted in order to stunt people’s understanding of the Universe. The result of presuming the Bible to be true and trying to fit your worldview to that, rather than fitting your worldview to the facts, is always going to be psychotic cultural appropriation. This Christian debater claimed that Christianity originated science, when all evidence proves that Christianity took us away from science, away from our ancestral religion and away from nature.

this is psychotic

The story of Christianity in Europe is a bit like that of Macbeth’s wife in the Shakespeare play of the same name. She cannot stop seeing blood on her hands and begins to wash them obsessively. Christians cannot tolerate the guilt of having slaughtered their pagan brothers, so they constantly wash their hands (so to speak): obsessing over physical cleanliness (i.e.: calling Indians “street shitters”) in an attempt to wash away their spiritual decay. Just like with Lady Macbeth, it never works, because the stain is on your soul. You must look inward to heal, not seek justification for your continued ignorance in superficial propaganda and empty ideologies.

Christians must engage in cultural appropriation in order to justify the violence their ancestors committed in the name of their religion. Perhaps, if Christianity originated science, then it was worth killing all those priests, intellectuals, philosophers and artists? This is not a fruitful path. Without accepting the truth, it won’t be possible to heal from the generations of harm that these cults have caused.

On the Argument that Non-Christians did not Practice Science

This argument is patently false. The knowledge basis of native religions was the Aryan Vedic religion, from which all knowledge originates. My body of work is the proof of this, because I was not able to achieve the Knowledge without guidance from this very body of Knowledge.

my religion can beat up your religion.

It is very insulting to lie about the origin of Knowledge. It is much better to modestly pray for guidance as to the deeper truths in the Universe. They will come to you only when your heart is open to receiving them.

On the Argument that Religion is Justified by Fecundity

I understand that some people are in an existential panic about the survival of their race, but more babies is not the solution. In fact, more than 2-3 children per couple is a violation of the r-K selection ideal and thus one cannot claim to support the scientifically validated r-K selection model AND also argue for eugenics to increase fecundity past replacement rate. K-selected civilisation is advanced because it can survive at the carrying capacity. This means no garbage nor toxic waste can be created, no unwanted children can be born and no unnatural (plant and livestock) farming processes can take place. In other words, the White Westerners who argue in favour of r-K selection theory are themselves behaving like r-selected idiots (consuming everything in sight and acting like their actions have no consequences).

A false religion does NOT improve the quality of society, even if it increases fecundity. Those who are born will be traumatised by the false religion and thus suffering will increase. We are not immune to the suffering of others and so this is an unwanted path. What we want is people being born into a society that can nurture them. We want people to be able to find their true path in life and follow it diligently. This goal is not aided by infinity reincarnation deniers who wish to infight about which of the million Christian cults is the correct one.

Atheism is Good

It is also true that a society without a state religion will fail. This is because the highest Entropy state of any social group is a Theocratic Dictatorship. Thus to deny the existence of a theocratic dictatorship is to deny the very nature of all systems of governance. Even in the modern day, cults dominate democracies, albeit in secret. Thus, as a social movement, atheism is always going to denigrate culture, because at its core, it is denigrating government, namely any authority of priests (the rightful leaders of government).

unless you count this as culture

Thus a state religion is required, but a false religion is always going to cause atheism. If you want to get rid of atheism, you have to get rid of the cause of atheism. The cause of atheism is a failure of religion to explain universal phenomena. That is why I suggest my science religion be instituted as the global dictatorship. I already have a scientific framework which can answer all questions about causality.

Democracy is Good

There is absolutely no argument to defend democracy. It is mob rule with the most degenerate cult leaders one can imagine. If you want proof of that, just look anywhere.

Literally, anything anywhere proves this hypothesis.

Theocratic Monarchism is Good

Monarchs were defeated by communists in the 19-20th centuries. They were defeated because they were weakened by false religion and decadence. A theocratic monarch is a nice idea, but frankly, no one is qualified for this role. All humans are weak to the appeal of materialism and egotistical gratification. Even my own Priest fold is not immune from the desires of ego. However, when a priest collective exists, it dis-incentivises egomania. That’s because we are all in a competition (of sorts) in the domain of religion. That means we all aspire to move beyond the confines of that which causes us suffering. But because we do not all have perfected consciousness, we cannot always know what causes us suffering. Thus we rely on the Priest collective to check our spiritual blind spots.

The challenge of finding a perfect theory of material physics is that you must first transcend material reality. If you want to transcend the nature of reality, you must make an intellectual inquiry. Since all inquiry is framed through the lens of one’s own ideology, how can we ever hope to understand what is going on outside of that?

We first start to understand things by imposing a model on them. Over time, we retain the models which make predictions and (hopefully) discard those which do not. Even language is a model: sounds are used to convey the nature of the human experience. The prediction of this model is that it is indeed possible to convey this experience.

How Physics Models Reality

Even if the mechanism we use to understand reality makes verifiable predictions, we cannot be guaranteed that it is objectively true. We will see below that two systems with extremely different structures still make a majority of convergent predictions.

Theoretically, physics is the practice of designing and fine-tuning a physical model satisfying the following criteria:

The model makes all predictions.

The model is minimally complex.

This is my definition of a complete physical model. Taking this definition as correct, we can use these requirements to evaluate the Standard Model as well as contrast it with my own Fourfold Action Model.

How Ideology is Formed

Often, people are quick to reject the idea that theocracy is natural, instead appealing to some other system. However, if we accept (take it on board as an hypothesis) that all forms of governance are computationally equivalent to theocratic dictatorships, we can start to predict who the associated “cult leaders” are. Thus, the hypothesis that the spontaneous state of government is a theocratic dictatorship makes verifiable predictions. These predictions further elucidate the nature of government, creating additional knowledge.

i.e.: Sar-Gandhi’s Liberalist Cult isn’t working out too well.

Generally a theocratic dictatorship has a leader. The leader may have several associates and delegates and beyond them there is a larger, more superficial following. Anyone else is considered outside of the cult. This shape (of a cult) is manifold, and so we can observe it on all levels of human interaction. For example, a small group of 3 people will have a “leader”, even if no one explicitly agrees to it. Even on the individual level, there are two “cults” vying for control of the mind: the wolf and the monk. The wolf craves hot blood gushing into his mouth from a fresh kill and the monk desires to move beyond the prison of existential angst. Two rival cults, with different natures, perpetually vying for control of the biomass is a transcendent meme: which means it is true on all levels of magnification.

Modern Cults

Cults rooted in communist ideology share a similar pattern. There is always a single leader whose opinion is vociferously defended to the point of being unquestionable. As such, the cult of modern physics has led to a great number of uneducated folks endlessly quoting one-liners as anecdotal evidence of their condescending assertions. For example:

Evolution being unquestionable, even though it is technically an unfalsifiable hypothesis!

idiot

It is quite ironic that every possible means is employed to justify that no theory can ever be proven with certainty (because all scientific theories must be falsifiable) while certain models are completely unquestionable within the “peer review community”, making them de facto unfalsifiable! But self-consistency is not the goal for these people, the goal is power.

Was Einstein a Fraud?

The question of the legitimacy of various scientific theories was of interest during the third reich (see here). After WW2, Einstein was promoted as the sole leader of the Physics cult and his theoretical framework was elevated to the status of Godhood.

There is absolutely no question that the political affiliation of Einstein was zionist and there is no question that he did not originate the majority of what is attributed to him in the modern day.

What is less clear is the extent to which unseen forces played a role in the creation of the modern day narrative of physics. While it may be impossible to know the precise causality, we can nonetheless compare the principal tenets of the mainstream narrative of physics with that which can be demonstrated in my scientific formalism, which is demonstrably better, because it is both simpler (less complex) and makes more predictions.

The Standard Model

Charge-Parity-Time Symmetry is true (if the charge, parity and time of a system is reversed, then the new system will be symmetrical (possessing the same physical properties).

The speed of light is constant, for a constant medium (Special Relativity).

All forces are mediated by fundamental particles which travel at the speed of light (see: Feynmann diagrams).

The observable Universe came from a singularity: the Big Bang, which happened some 13 Billion years ago and at which point the laws of physics didn’t apply (bc “reasons”) and from which the entire observable Universe originated.

Uncertainty governs all instances of the transmutation of matter (predicts Nuclear Reactivity).

Electricity governs all other energy potentials.

Entropy acts upon every system (dt => dS).

Order underlies all chaos.

The Universe is uncreated.

Planets are created by Stars, which are created by Neutron Stars (before you start crying, it’s been demonstrated).

Singularities are false.

This model makes all predictions (meaning its constituents can be used to describe any physical system).

These are basically polar opposite theories. These results support the hypothesis that physics is indeed subverted for the goal of preventing people from understanding how the Universe actually works.

If people are truly science-minded and not ideology-bound, they should seek to understand my scientific system and abandon the false one. The Standard Model devotees endlessly promote that “little is known”, “we don’t know everything” and even “we can’t know everything”. It is very nihilistic and causes a loss of knowledge because people cannot coherently observe that which they do not believe in. My world view promotes that it is possible to garner information from a system, that this information can be optimised and that the only limit on measurement are the 3+1 dimensions of spacetime.

At this point, whether physics was subverted or just unfortunate is not really relevant. Because now we can all enjoy the quantum mechanical periodic table together:

Quantum Mechanical Periodic Table, Artistic Impressions

I really like that meme. The Standard Model does not have that meme.

Come over to the dank side.

Ideological Differences Between Physical Models

How, if the observations of material reality are the same, can these models be SO different. The reason is that the Standard Model is fundamentally wrong. However, because its (fundamentally wrong) assertion that there can be any time symmetry is approximately true on the microscale and thus results can be produced that appear to validate this hypothesis. Let’s find out why:

In my system, we accept that time travels in a unique direction. That is the direction of increasing Entropy. Our formalism summarises this in the following expression:

dt => dS

Which means that for every infinitesimal (smallest nonzero) increment of time, there will be a corresponding infinitesimal increase in Entropy. Outside of Standard Model particle physics, this is not even a controversial statement. Thermodynamics, which expounds the laws of heat transfer, explicitly teaches the so called “arrow of time” (time can only go forward, not back). Yet the SM teaches that if we reverse charge-parity-time, then we will end up with identical physical systems. This is false.

The truth is that Entropy always increases and it does so in a manner which is strictly not symmetric. However, on very small time scales, the increase in Entropy will be correspondingly small. Thus proponents of the Standard Model are able to generate experimental results which appear to have CPT symmetry because the time interval over which they are measured is so small that the increase in Entropy is not detectable.

don’t make me have to meme on you.

Belief in the Standard Model ideology undermines one’s understanding of nature. Everything originates from the Zero Point Waveform. If you don’t believe that this waveform exists, then you won’t be able to perceive it. Belief in existence is a necessary condition for understanding and assimilating the Zero Point Energy Knowledge.

*Because the Big Bang is a singularity and singularities are regions where the laws of physics break down, they make all predictions (both true and false) and thus are tautological.

Is there such a thing as an individual?

Collective identities are archetype systems. For example, Marxism stratifies society along materialistic lines: proletariat & bourgeoisie. The collective identity of Christianity idealises the personality of Jesus, evoking self-sacrifice, patience and generosity in its followers. While they are not always aware of this motivation, members of a collective strive towards the ideal of their archetype system. While we all exist as individual conscious entities, an individual has no distinctiveness without a corresponding collective: archetype system.

Can a patient exist without a doctor? Can a student exist without a teacher? The answer is no, and it is because the former requires the latter to even be defined in the first place. A Doctor can exist without a patient, but not without an organisation which bestows upon him the authority to practice. In fact, all but one archetype requires an associated collective. The archetype which does not require a collective is the archetype which creates all others: the God archetype. The God archetype exists whether or not anything else does.

Religion Creates Culture

I think many people will be resistant to this idea, but I ask that you keep an open mind. Remember that the word “culture” derives from cult (a religious organisation) and so it is logical that civilisations spontaneously progress towards a Theocratic Dictatorship.

This simple fact is why the likes of Sargon of Akkad (debate here and “after party” here) will always reach absurd conclusions when attempting to place the “individual” as the highest ideal. This strategy will fail because it contradicts the fundamental archetype of God. God alone is worthy of worship, not the ego. Individualism is a form of ego worship. Ego worship causes the consciousness to be directed inward. While everyone has an ego, true spiritual practice requires the consciousness to be outwardly directed in order to experience expanded consciousness.

don’t get your ego caught up your own ass.

“Individualism” is a Selfish and Unnatural Ideology

“Individualism” is nothing more than self-aggrandisement. In fact, it is a cruel ideology because those of inferior intellect need collectivism. While those of superior intellect can “make do” without collectivism, those lacking a fully formed ego require a rigid hierarchy around which to frame their identity (so that they can actualise their archetype, optimise their archetype and ultimately transcend their (and all) sociological archetype(s)). Traditional teachings have always emphasised the importance of optimising ones adherence to their natural archetype.

The Solution to Shitty Collectivism is Optimised Collectivism

All forms of collectivism should be eschewed in favour of Theocratic Dictatorship. This system of government allows for anyone to join the governing class, provided they are considered fit. When a new recruit is brought on board, an existing priest must stake their reputation on their behaviour. If the new recruit commits a bannable offence (the High Priest Collective decides what constitutes a bannable offence), then the honour of the recruiter is diminished and the recruit is shunned. This system may sound harsh to the uninitiated but remains nonetheless the best defence against . To wield power over others, one must be held accountable and to the highest possible standard. People must be dis-incentivised from corruption to the greatest possible extent.

where’s the lie tho?

Individuals Will Always Fail Against a Unified Collective

With the exception of the God archetype (who can defeat any opposition), individuals tend to fail when going up against collectives. Collectives contain numerous people and their combined brainpower and physical might usually overpower those operating alone or by “muh individualism”.

The MSM has made such a golem out of the Alt-Right that it has become a type of virtue signalling to attempt to criticise, “debunk” and “take down” this “organisation”. This often proves easier said than done.

No, you didn’t.

The “Personal Freedom / Rights” Fallacy

People don’t usually know what they are talking about when they invoke the “muh rights” argument. This is fallacious. Human rights do exist, but they derive from God, not man. Laws are man-made and can either reflect the Natural Law or (as is the case in the current system) fight it tooth and nail. The problem with “human rights” as ideals is that one person’s positive “right” will necessarily be a violation of someone else’s “right” wherever resources are scarce. This subtlety is often overlooked by those of lower intellect.

The Proper Approach is r-K Selection Theory

r-K selection theory is a good dual (containing 2 elements) pulveriser function to use as a first pass ideology for genetic migration. This means we can continue to infer increasingly more precise measurements at all orders of magnitude from this system. We just have to make sure that we accurately define exactly what is meant by r and K type behaviour. For this, we always return to the original definition: K-type behaviour is near carrying capacity and r-type behaviour is far carrying capacity. Thus this pulveriser will be accurate as long as it is properly parametrised.

Today, it is actually a “plus” to be widely hated (by the right people). This shouldn’t come as a surprise, it has always been like that in circles of true influence (regal infamy). So while it is unwise to attempt to win a debate by the sole means of ad hominem, it is naive to fail to consider the circumstances surrounding events as well as the type of person putting forth an argument.

One might ask if associating with Einstein, the greatest villain of modern science, is a sufficient reason to discard all of someone’s opinions? You might be surprised to learn that I don’t have strong opinions on who associates with whom. A person’s actions determine their value more so than their associates. Jesus (whether he existed or not) himself associated with all sorts, suggesting this is culturally accepted as a virtue.

It would be naive to deny any impact whatsoever of Gödel’s environment on his attitudes, however.

I am of the opinion that his first incompleteness theorem is false because of the sheer number of times I hear it quoted to me in the interest of justifying some pretty absurd ideas. For instance, Dr. Jordan Peterson used the Incompleteness theorem when asserting that “God” is a prerequisite for truth: pretty irresponsible. This is untrue, a well-defined philosophical system is what allows for truth to be known. “God” as prime truth seems illogical. God cannot be narrowly defined since people’s individual definitions of “God” vary so much

If you cavalierly quote someone’s obscure theory to substantiate your position, you look like a dumbass when your statements contradict their ideology!!

Whether legitimate or not, Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem smells like a proof that “some ideas aren’t allowed”. But hey, I could be wrong. I could just be a crazy conspiracy theorist delusional person.

Oh, well, if Von Neumann endorses him, well, I just don’t know!

Let’s have a look at this dreadful theory people keep preaching to me:

First Incompleteness Theorem: “Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.”

A consequence is that we ought to be unable to accomplish a unified field theory. If you believe in Gödel, you can never believe a unified field theory exists. Yet, tradition has always taught that a unified field theory DOES exist (the “self”).

Counter Proof of Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem

We define F to be the set of all potential computations/measurements (actions) in the Universe. Let us define the “sentences” as series of actions. Since our action model behaves as operators (sorry but you have to understand rudimentary linear algebra for that one) & operators are linear maps, an elementary arithmetic exists. This arithmetic is the matrix multiplication/addition intrinsic to linear maps. This is used to construct “sentencesf”.

True sentences the satisfy the criterion of computability (within the Measurement Limit) and false sentences are incomputable (in excess of the Measurement Limit). This means that all actions are either proved (computable) or disproved (incomputable). The Measurement Limit cleanly delineates the criterion of trueness for all actions. That is: measurements exceeding what is permissible by the Measurement Limit are false.

In our example, we consider only the potential for computation, so we never end up having to carry out any actual measurements.

Measurements reduce quantum waveforms, therefore there is a limit to the new information successive measurements can derive. Thus both the elementary arithmetic exists (the Measurement Limit pulveriser) and actions can always be either proved (computable) or disproved (not computable). Thus there are NO statements which can neither be proved nor disproved. This would seem to contradict Gödel.

QED

I’m probs right tho. Statistically speaking.

Where is Gödel’s Flaw?

(source) The Flaw of Gödel is not technical but rather: structural. There is no such thing as “ω-consistent“. This is because there is no such thing as “intuitively contradictory”. You will eventually run out of new statements that you can make in an “infinite” system, thus you will not necessarily be able to construct the element of the proof required to make the necessary contradiction (see the 3rd step of the sketch proof).

This is because, at its core, the infinite number line (“Gödel’s numbers”) exists nowhere. Even the Universe itself has a “size” (largest interstellar distance) beyond which it is undefined. Measurements only exist because we can make them. Measurements all exist within the Measurement Limit. This can be shown to exist, be self consistent and make all predictions. An Entropic-Anthropic Principle!

Let us also consider that Gödel was a nervous insecure wreck. We are basically dealing with a dual competing hypothesis situation:

Einstein is a really amazing smart guy who hung out with his equally enlightened yet ironically perpetually ill Gödel and they uncovered the secrets of the Universe.

Einstein’s goals were political first and mathematical second. Einstein’s “antifascist” alliance combined with Gödel’s persecution complex to create a scientific philosophy that made everyone completely turned off from natural science because they presented it as a horrible pot of jibberish nonsense.

“This is Woo”

Some people say the quantum mind hypothesis is ‘wrong’ because it is ‘woo’. This is false. The truth is that there are many nonsensical theories out there. These are put forth to paralyse the minds of devotees. These psyops only exist because there is something to cover up! Those seeking to defame the Knowledge do so out of allegiance to the status quo. Luckily for us, the Periodic Table has made this shilling ineffective / counterproductive.

On Allegations of “Unprovability”

If you wish to put forward the argument that my statements are unprovable, you must accept that these allegations would apply equally (at least!) to Gödel’s gobledigook. Then it becomes a 3 state hypothesis: 1. Gödel & his buddy Einstein are right, somehow. 2. I’m right and I am the cool one 3. Someone else, who isn’t 1. or 2. is more correct.

I warn that a counterargument will most likely also fall into the domain of: ‘unprovable’!

Philosophy – General

No matter what topic you want to discuss, there will always be a structure (hierarchy of values) within which this discussion takes place. The truth value of conclusions drawn are thus not independent of said structure.

Generally, observations are first made through the subject’s fundamental ideology, then interpreted through their values hierarchy. This is a parse metric which sorts the information in a manner which eventually leads the subject to be able to draw a conclusions about the original statement, such as whether it is “true” or “false”.

When discussing particular subjects, we often run into problems because people have different values hierarchies. Rather than obtaining a conclusion, most debates turn into a stalemate. This is why it is very important to be clear both on the definitions of words and values hierarchy. Let’s explore each step of the process in greater detail.

Observations

These are sensory impressions delivered by means of the body’s electro-chemical potentials which form the bridge between the body (massive) and soul (a light-like quantum computer).

Fundamental Ideologies

Observations are first interpreted/simplified/compressed by the fundamental ideology. Given the large amount of sensory data, our mind must condense the information it is first supplied with so it can make sense of what it is experiencing.

While not everyone has the same fundamental ideology, most will have a fundamental ideology connected to their primary sense organs sight/forms and hearing/sounds.

If it makes you feel any better, 99% of mainstream scientists don’t understand this stuff either.

While we could argue about which system was optimal as regards to parametrising a particular set (i.e.: the linear system is optimised for physical computers, the geometric system for physical buildings, the QM system for the consciousness…), it’s clear that we cannot associate a Truth value to any of these ideologies: they are unfalsifiable. (for example: English is “true”, as in: it exists. but then again so does French). Ideologies cannot usually be falsified, rather optimised.

We seek to optimise our fundamental ideologies in my religion. We achieve this by studying them and debating which is best.

Values Hierarchy

The Values Hierarchy is the structure demarcating what values are most important. Some examples of values include: religious scripture, truth, pandering (wanting to make everyone happy), identity, history.

My Primary Value is Truth

To summarise, observations are the measurements made by the mind/body. These are first interpreted by the fundamental ideology before being sorted by the values hierarchy. The end result of this sort process is the entity deciding a truth value for the original statement.

The complexity of the subjective experience highlights why it is very important to be clear both about the definitions of individual words (Sound Vectors) and ideologies (individual values hierarchy).

Types of Assertions

Falsifiable, Predictive: Limited scientific theory. These theories are useful for understanding causality in a partial manner. Once they are falsified, they must be abandoned (something the communists seem to have a hard time understanding).

Falsifiable, Unpredictive: These are false descriptions, such as: “you’re ugly”. Pretty much useless.

Unfalsifiable, Unpredictive: Trite theories, such as: “There is an invisible unicorn in the room”.

Unfalsifiable, Predictive: Complete scientific theory. These theories are useful for understanding the causality (the totality of all cause-effect relationships) of a particular system in a complete manner. For example, the Measurement Limit.

We generally run into problems when we use FP instead of UP theories. There can exist UP theories in psychology & philosophy (these subjects overlap in the domain of the Quantum Mind), but most people end up arguing in circles ad infinitum over minutia.

Optimising Ideology with Quantum Geometry

We cannot escape the need to parametrise all systems we are intent on describing. Because topographies vary, we must first and foremost parametrise a system within its particular configuration space (3+1 measurements per order of magnitude). Luckily, most systems don’t need to be parametrised exactly (with full formulaic representation) before we can make viable predictions about them. In any case, we begin by subdividing a system into what information is knowable and what is unknowable.

Next, iterative/recursive optimisation is employed. Ideally, we want this process to be convergent, that is: the optimised version includes the original parse metric.

In order for a parse metric to be completeit must make all predictions within a particular system. Thus our optimisation process will involve either one or both of:

Shrinking the domain of applicability

Increasing the complexity of the parse metric

Applied Science Philosophy

It is not realistic to expect to find simple (low cardinality) parse metrics to expound causality of subjective phenomena. This is why people fight so much about the causality of race and culture: these parse metrics are often improperly defined / delineated and can’t help but create controversies.

Criticising an unfalsifiable parse metric without a viable alternative hypothesis is counter-productive. Presuming that an unfalsifiable, predictive parse metric is sufficient to transcend the causality of complex systems is naive. Only by studying the set of unfalsifiable parse metrics can we gain the intuition required to judge which parse metric is optimal for a given situation.

Q U I C K R U N D O W N

My system is a transcendent fourfold action model. This means that everything that happens can be explained by one or more actions, specifically: Gravity (mass attracts mass & energy alike), Uncertainty (the product of the uncertainty of system observables is bounded by a constant, called the Plank Constant), Electricity (movement of electrons and resulting electromagnetic fields) & Entropy (the spontaneous increase of disorder). It is simple on the surface, but it takes some time to be able to understand it inside and out (mainly because Uncertainty is difficult to visualise).

Many commonly held beliefs in science are false. Here we will explore how to refute such hoaxes. My system makes it much easier to refute falsity, because it is true.

The Big Bang

This is the belief in a singular origin of Universal matter. This can be refuted in a number of ways:

Background radiation is isotropic, meaning it comes from all directions, if the Big Bang had happened, it would have an origin point, and there would be a direction between us and it. Thus the background radiation would have a direction, which is does not.

If everything had a singular origin, it would all be the same age, which we do not observe (some parts of the Universe are much older than ours, some, much younger).

Big Bang claims that we are “made of stardust”, which would require our planets to have coalesced from smaller bodies (precipitated from plasma created in the Big Bang). However, all planets in our Solar System have the same age (to within a modest error margin). This supports the position that our Solar System was created near-simultaneously, not accreted over millennia.

Comment: It is somewhat confusing that The Universe does not have a unique origin point, but that our Solar System does. In order to understand, we must first clear our minds as the Big Bang mythos is entirely false. Simulating the Big Bang using the Quantum Mind requires cognitive dissonance. This is an electromagnetic “knot”, and requires comparatively more effort to simulate. Take your time.

The Standard Model

If we accept the ad hoc assumption that entities behave either in a wave-like OR particle-like manner, then the standard model is 100% false. It posits that the Universe is made up of particles, that everything can be broken down into individual “particles”. The truth is that all spacetime entities are fundamentally wavelike, particle-like behaviour is an illusion. It can be falsified with the following talking points:

All actions are explained with 3 massive entities (electron, proton, neutron), why do you need a bunch more when they don’t make additional predictions?

Did you know that both Einstein and Feynmann were proven frauds?

Evolution

On the surface, Evolution appears to be unfalsifiable. It claims that traits are “selected” for (and against) and over longer periods of time, traits best suited to environment will become more widespread. It’s not that this mechanism isn’t true, it’s just not the main mechanism of organismal change. The DNA matrix is far more malleable than we realise (I am not going to share this knowledge until my Theocratic Dictatorship is instituted. because reasons). Therefore “evolution” is marred with erroneous causality: where cause and effect are switched.

The Earth/Moon/Sun system is bounded (since the Earth’s oceans bind the Solar photons to the surface of the planet) and thus the ability of this system to increase the Entropy (in other words: digest the solar photons) always improves. This tendency motivates more change than natural selection.

The DNA matrix holds the computational complexity to change in the face of changing environmental conditions (rather than environmental conditions changing the DNA, as taught by evolution).

Is anything not a hoax?

A few things aren’t a hoax. I’ve worked my whole life to formalise what isn’t a hoax, and that’s my fourfold action model. Let’s have a look at what that entails.

All actions can be explained with the fourfold set: {Gravity, Uncertainty, Electricity, Entropy}.

The speed of light appears to be bounded by a constant. The consequences of this are time dilation and length contraction (Special Relativity) (not required theoretical knowledge, but still nice to know).

Everything is a spacetime event. Yes, even you. You are a spacetime event. The Periodic Table is the smallest possible spacetime event. You, as an entity, are also a spacetime event. A spacetime event contains space-like and time-like measurements bounded by the Measurement Limit, that is, 3+1 maximally independent measurements per order of magnitude.

Do not feel as though you have to transcend my system in order to defend it. It is already validated by several domains and has no counter-evidence. It is highly unlikely that any counter-evidence will be found in the current lifetime because there is a good chance my system is objectively correct. In the event that counter-evidence is supplied, I will accept it and update my theory, because that is what scientists do.

Here are some ideas for our future Natural Law based Governance system. It represents a philosophical departure from the reigning orthodoxy in that: there will be no more elections, instead individuals will be allowed to join our collective on the basis of merit. There will be no fiat banking, since we will oversee the Central Banks returning to a tangible standard. Generally there will be restrictions on behaviour, so that superior people can properly fulfil their duties as the Priest Class: teaching and guiding those less evolved.

Ban on the Promotion of False Ideology

All popular ideologies will be expounded in debate. Those ideologies found to be inconsistent with or antagonistic towards Natural Law will be banned from public discourse. This ban will be punishable by increasing measures, beginning with public humiliation.

It’s “satire”, bro.

Active Promotion of Truth Ideology

Time-honoured, scientifically validated traditions will be promoted. Public debate (by accepted persons) as to what constitutes false ideology will take place. I personally wish we could make all natural drugs legal, but also realise that we are facing an epidemic of legal drugs which is far more severe than all but the most extreme illegal drugs. Thus my current compromise is a ban on non-natural drugs, starting with anti-depressants and other psychotropics with no proven benefit.

Not Capitalism. Certainly NOT Communism.

Capitalism is problematic because not all markets can be managed via the profit motive. Communism has been disproven so many times, it doesn’t even warrant an explanation. Shut up about communism.

I cannot explain this joke to you. But I can confirm that communism won’t recover from it.

We must remember 2 things: wanting to make money / acquire property is a human desire, it cannot be successfully enforced by law. Any attempts to enshrine “capitalism” into law are bound to fail (and likely be used to extortive ends). Communism is the same: people gather into groups by their preferences and live as communities. You cannot enforce this through central government.

What can be the role of central government?

Voluntary contracts enforcement, education propaganda, military protection. I regret to say that additionally I recommend nationalising the Monsanto Corporation to prevent any major threat to the food supply as well as decelerate the use of poisonous chemicals (RoundUp) in food production.

Generally, we acknowledge the problems of incentivising the profit motive in the domains of

Health & Medicine (treating problems rather than finding cures)

Education (lying about reality for over 100 years in order to turn people into slavelike pinheads)

Defence (wars for profit)

Food production (corporate food producers lobbying to increase the amount of toxins legally allowed in food rather than growing food organically)

This cannot be allowed to continue. That said, I am not interested in policing false laws, so expect that to be drastically reduced in favour of creating a society that doesn’t make me want to remain in the basement at all times.

Think of it like a rival gang takeover

Sure, we aren’t perfect, but our competitor is pure evil! I am the decider as to who makes decisions in my cult/religion/gang/government. Ideologically, we all want to protect innocents from harm.

The rival cult aren’t nice people.

My main concerns are: removing the shadow government, dealing with the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, installing Natural Law Government, never EVER having to have an argument with someone in the rival cult again, since no one will care about false religions after they stop being funded by Central Banks. Moreover, I have provided a replacement science religion to help with adjusting to our legal / social / economic system.

Or, you can have Islamic Sharia, I guess. Choose wisely.

Thank you.

Below are the properties we can realistically acquire in terms of influence. Note that I am from the Quebec region and love it dearly and so would like to preserve the French heritage there, and have a strong basis of Truth Religion Education in the region, since the Periodic Table looks like a Quantum Mechanical Vagina. I didn’t put a name for Africa since I knew no matter what I put, it would likely cause offence, and this is not what I want to do (asides from the requisite offence Truth bears; this cannot be avoided). Pic inspired by this. It’s meant to be fun.